How Historically Accurate Was Red Dead Redemption?

We put a Western historian in front of the game to get his reactions.

Red Dead Redemption took top honors in many a Game of the Year list, including our own. John Marston's bloodied past, attempted reform, and ultimate return to lawlessness echoes the western stories that dotted the fiction landscape throughout the golden age of radio and television. Rockstar was praised for its deft hand at painting a narrative with heart in an unconventional time period.

The myth of the cowboy, however, is quite a bit different than the true stories of wage-workers and farmhands. We talked to Andrew Needham, an Assistant Professor of History at New York University, about the game. Needham specializes in the American West and environmental history, so we turned to him with our questions on Marston's journey through the Old West.

This is Red Dead Redemption's reality check.

The year is 1911. Government agents have blackmailed a former outlaw into capturing or killing his old gang members. The ways of the Old West are dying out, and technology is starting to infringe on the simple lives of small-town America. The federal government is exerting its control, and John Marston is a cog in their machinations to bring order and civility to the dusty settlements.

Most of this probably wouldn't have happened in 1911 at all.

"1911 is much later than the game seems to be set," Needham said. "If I didn't know it was 1911 -- if you had sat me down and asked when it was set -- I'd say something like early 1880s. It feels like that time, [around the] shootout at the OK Corral. 1880s, 1890s, rather than 1911 when you have significant urbanization going on in the west. That kind of technological conquest of the west happened much earlier than is depicted in the game."

Setting the game in 1911 was clearly a conscious choice, and most likely served a few purposes. For one, it allowed Rockstar to invoke the Mexican rebellion as a plot point, which Needham says is accurate to the time. It also avoided any uncomfortable scenes involving the displacement of or battles with Native Americans.

Gun, another western game published in 2005, featured frequent battles with Native populations. Red Dead Redemption, by comparison, only contains one major Native American, a patient man who quietly simmers under the racist and condescending tone other characters. Needham suggests sensitivity played a factor in selecting the time period.

"I think that's a pretty deliberate choice given the difficulty [of the subject]," he said.

Comments (45)

Big Jake

The setting of the game reminds me of the John Wayne movie "Big Jake", which was set in 1909 and features an early semi-auto pistol, scoped bolt-action rifles, and (if I remember correctly) a motorcycle.

I think it was unnecessary to set it in 1911 to avoid conflict with Indians. Lots of western films set in 1880 or later feature little or no contact with Indians.

If I were making the game, I would have set it in 1899. That would allow for the Mauser C96 and also some bolt-action rifle with a scope. Rifle scopes were rare then but nothing new. Scoped rifles were used in limited numbers in the Civil War.

Great or Amazing

I don't know when it became cool to say GTA4 was a shitty game, but it needs to stop. If you didn't think it deserved 9 to 10 out of 10, then say it was overrated. Saying the game was bad makes you sound retarded. The animation engine, the scale, the soundtrack, the voice acting, and the ambitious multiplayer alone make it a "great game." If you also found the story and characters to be incredibly rewarding (as I and many others did), then the game was "amazing." But those are really your only two options. Otherwise you really are just stupid, and I'm sorry for you.

yea

RDR much better than GTA IV

Red Dead was much better than GTA IV and I don't know how anyone can say it was overrated but GTA IV wasn't? GTA IV was the biggest bust of a game I have seen in a while. I had more freedom and fun in GTA San Andreas and millions of ppl didn't wait in line at midnight to get San Andreas. Atleast RDR was a new and fresh idea with a great story and great voice acting.

...

wfgq

this game was over rated and a weak western version of GTA, i dont like either but atleast GTA didnt get over rated like this game. They should not make a new RDR because some games are better with just one, like halo got weaker thinking it would do good but no. They should make a open world game like infamous now that would be good but no western style because that is boring and played out.

are u retarted

obviously uve never played the game or else u would see how deep the game is as well as the story. its a masterpiece in gaming and better then any of the gta's.how is western boring and played out?? there has only been two other franchises (gun and call of jueraz) and they havent come close to what rdr have done. open world games in general are played out, just like fps games are played out, what it comes down to is who can inovate and create something unique in their games and then to comment on halo. ya i thought halo 3 and odst were kind of weak, but reach brought it back to what people enjoyed in the first place, it played similiar to halo and halo 2.

Agreed in part

Neither games offer much to occupy the gamer beyond shooting things -- a thankless task 90% of games incorporate, be it their genre or not.

The idea of a 'sandbox' game is to give the player as much freedom as hardware contraints allow. This can mean side missions, throw-away activities, genreal running amuck, exploration... But RDR and the recent GTAs have failed in this, in that they basically given us GTAIII on vastly superior consoles.

Where are all the buidings we can explore and why don't those we can have anything in them to interact with? Why cannot we climb realistically; trees, scale cliffs, even run up escarpments? Why cannot we use environmental objects; pick up, use and throw things? Why so few fun Easter eggs; hidden areas, vehicles, glitches to exploit? Why can't cowboys swim?! Why the hell cannot we tackle missions the way WE want in a NON LINEAR fashion??

GTA: Vice City was the last true sandbox, open world video game. R* should use this game as a reference as to what's supposed to make this genre unique.

Popular media is seldom historically accurate,

but if it encourages people to learn more about history, it can only be a good thing. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. We're seeing quite a bit of this with current events around the world.

The devil isn't in the details

"...Red Dead Redemption shares more in common with the western genre of films and old serial stories than it does with actual western history."

Though I do not agree with what you have to say, good sir, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

There's a broader theme in RDR than just that of the dying American gunslinger - the death of the American frontier. NPCs talk about it. Marston discusses it at length. There are telephone poles running through the once relatively unblemished fields and valleys of New Austin, showing its affects at large. It's a huge transitional stage in the life of America that affected how people thought, interacted, and generally conceived their position in the world. Here's an old dead white guy discussing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis

"There's a town out there, and then the federal government comes in. I think that narrative is a little too neatly sequential. When Phoenix was created in the 1870s, it settled really largely to grow grain to sell to a federal army camp down the road. So state action in the west happened hand-in-hand, rather than the big evil American government coming to impose its vision on the towns."

Again, I disagree. This line of thought is too vague.

The 'forces of government and industry' arrived slower in certain areas than they did in others. Sure, train stations and army depots made great locations for towns like Phoenix or Denver because they provided a market for various ranchers and farmers to sell their goods. That doesn't mean that there weren't - and still aren't - thousands of ranches and farms deliberately located off the beaten path. Ever been to Eastern Montana? Take away the town Walmarts and satellite TVs and you've got yourself an 1890s time machine..

So John Marston killed enough people to make Al Capone look like he ran a day care center. That doesn't mean RDR is a historically inaccurate game. The Frontier Thesis, though it wears the mask of the traditional Hollywood gunman, is the historical heart of RDR. All the showiness that comes with it is - historically inaccurate and Hollywood inspired - is simply a fun and exciting way to bring that central theme alive to gamers. Plus, the rugged American hero, the great explorer and individualist, is equally as important in that it has been found in popular American media since the days of James Fenmore Cooper, and therefore resonates with America's identity.

The point - don't get too caught up in the little things regarding history in media. Red Dead Redemption is a great example of history being done right in a game, and should be emulated in the future.

Really?

You disagree? Why would you even try to best a history professor that obviously knows what he is talking about?

I understand that you like this game but your reasoning is just way off:

"So John Marston killed enough people to make Al Capone look like he ran a day care center. That doesn't mean RDR is a historically inaccurate game." <- Really? I came to the opposite conclusion.

The question that the professor is trying to answer is whether red dead redemption is historically plausible. In many areas it clearly isn't. Despite this he gives the game credit for having a genuine feel to it, which is a fair assessment.

DAGGNABIT!!!

this is one game that i really really, regret trading in. i actually found it very relaxing just traveling to different destinations on my trusty steed, watching day turn into night. what an awesome game,ill def pick this game up again when i see it on the used rack at gamestop. ive been known to make stupid decisions before and getting rid of this game is one of my biggest.

Ah man

I think we've all been there man! Gamestop will eat up some soon-to-be classics from everone, myself included. I'm still waiting to play this game (I only have PC) and I'm really really hoping they make a port someday. I was completely blown away with GTA4 and it's two DLCs, and I've played all the GTA's... this one though seemed to finally grab hold of emotion between characters in the perfect way. Maybe the voice acting, maybe the overall scope of graphics etc... whatever it is, Rockstar knows how to make truely A Class games.

Historical

Well...

...It's not Grand Theft Auto in the old west unless you can skronk a hooker then kill her and take your money back. Actually I'm glad they kept that out. Needless sadism is needless. I do find it funny that of instead of the hooker killing you can go out and collect flowers. Must be an inside joke of some kind. Yes, I know there is a side mission for collecting flowers, but that's not my point so shut up.

managing controversy

i think rockstar is very carefull when it comes to choosing its controversial subjects. Being a criminal is one thing. Taking part in mass murder and ethnic cleansing is something completely different. I think it is very hard to make a game which in some ways includes Indian wars. If you tried to be realistic you would end up with a bunch of racist, brutal characters, part of the era, but at the same time completely abhorrent as protagonists for a modern society. Or you end up tidying things up and leave a fake impression. I think games need a little bit more time before they can confidently handle subjects like that.

Having said that, from my limited contact with the game I would never guess this is supposed to be 1911. Felt like the 1870s/1880s, or at least its image from western books/movies since admittedly I my historical research for that era is limited to Wikipedia.

so.... does this mean....

...Rockstar is going to take another step backwards and make a tale about a knight or something or other in midievel times?? i mean, its technically possible... and frankly, i think i would welcome a good game set in those times... sure, we wont have guns... but that would give them cause to refine the hand-to-hand combat, as well as swords and bow&arrows and pikes and whatnot... a game set in those ages by Rockstar would probably be a hot topic...

RDR is truly a good game and that there are debates on the historical accuracy well after its release is a good way to keep the game alive...

Whenever game journos would call RDR "history"...

Sweet article 1up

Very cool analysis from Needham, and good to get some historical perspective. He's dead-on about the trope of the 'vanishing' cow-puncher. This game reminds me me more of a Cormac McCarthy novel (think Blood Meridian) than he historical West, but that's part of American mythology and a videogame is a perfect place to express that :)

huh

it was another reason for setting the game

in 1911. Edison's early patent on the flag within a flagger lapsed and mass production began. Soon, all over the great west, flags were popping up with 20, 30, even 40 flags within them. There were even some reports of as many as 50 flags within flags. However, we should never forget that such luxuries were almost exlusively the domain of white, Protestant, property-owning males. Nevertheless, this type of historical accuracy and flag within flag attention to detail is what really sets Red Dead Redemption a cut above the rest.

I would...

I would like to flag this comment. This kind of "favoritism" for flags is why this country is headed down the crapper. What about all those stars out there? I think they belong in this country just as much as the flags do. Don't EVEN get me started on stripes.